An artist’s impression of Brill Tower in Somers Town

• THE application before the planning committee on June 4 concerning the Brill Tower was ostensibly a “minor” material amendment, but in the context of Plot 7 itself the changes were major.

While the footprint of the tower is larger than the 2016 design, it is overshadowed by a bulkier, heavier, and more commercial tower than the previous “transparent” one that residents had come to expect.

Councillors were told the tower is no longer a Community Investment Programme scheme. Nonetheless the new homes will be delivered as part of the CIP. The changes to the planning gain (S106) were not attached to the application. Thus the debate was taking place in the dark.

Confusion as to what planning obligations and conditions were already attached to the tower site meant the committee were effectively denied the option of putting in additional conditions, such as protecting the park during construction.

Crucially, the number of flats has gone up from 54 to 68 (all private) or 25 per cent, a major increase, not a minor one. Because the planners consider this a minor material amendment, the developer LBS Properties is not obliged to carry out a wider public consultation.

Somers Town branch of the Labour Party was sufficiently concerned to pass a resolution in April asking for new viability assessment, an effective consultation with local residents and a new application unless the additional units are made available for social rent and additional green space and play space provided.

There was a discussion at the Committee about whether, if LBS made a windfall on the tower, the council would be able to claw some back.

The most extraordinary aspect of last Thursday’s meeting was the inclusion of a viability review showing that the tower is in deficit by £15.2million.

Under normal circumstances, the project would not go ahead. Indeed, the review states that “…there is likely to be a significant deficit in order to meet the cost of delivering the community assets (c£33.6million)…”

The Brill Tower was approved by eight votes in favour and three against. Our planning system did not do us justice here. We need to have more transparency at committee meetings.

Why did the legal department not provide detailed comments on the application? Why weren’t the existing S106 agreements produced? Why was there a lingering feeling that critical issues had not been discussed in depth?

And one more thing! If there is no land purchase cost claw-back who will have to provide the £33.6million of community assets?

CLLR PAUL TOMLINSON
Labour, St Pancras & Somers Town ward